Farnham Lane, East Burnham

Wessex Archaeology
East Burnham Quarry, Farnham Lane,

East Burnham,
Buckinghamshire
Desk-based Assessment
Ref: 67890.01 December 2007

EAST BURNHAM QUARRY, FARNHAM LANE,
EAST BURNHAM,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Desk Based Assessment
Prepared on behalf of
Summerleaze Limited
7 Summerleaze Road,
Maidenhead,
Berkshire
SL6 8SP
by
Wessex Archaeology
Unit 113
The Chandlery
50 Westminster Bridge Road
LONDON
SE1 7QY
Report reference: 67890.01
December 2007
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786
Summerleaze Limited
East Burnham Quarry, Buckinghamshire

EAST BURNHAM,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background.................................................................................. 1
1.2 Landscape and Geology .......................................................................... 1
2 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................2
2.1 Scope....................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Research ................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Legislative and Planning Background....................................................... 4
3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.....................5
3.1 Palaeolithic............................................................................................... 6
3.2 Mesolithic................................................................................................. 6
3.3 Neolithic ................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Bronze Age .............................................................................................. 7
3.5 Iron Age and Roman ................................................................................ 7
3.6 Saxon and Medieval................................................................................. 8
3.7 Post-Medieval and Modern ...................................................................... 8
4 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS...............9
4.1 Potential Impacts ..................................................................................... 9
4.2 Existing Impacts..................................................................................... 10
5 RESULTS...............................................................................................10
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 10
5.2 Legislative and Planning Constraints...................................................... 10
5.3 Map Regression..................................................................................... 10
5.4 Site Walkover......................................................................................... 10
5.5 Hedgerows............................................................................................. 10
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................12
6.1 Summary of Archaeological Constraints................................................. 12
6.2 Further Works and Mitigation ................................................................. 13
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................12
i
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Buckinghamshire Sites and Monuments Record

Appendix 2 – Cartographic Resource
Appendix 3 – Geoarchaeological Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Area showing Buckinghamshire County

Council Historic Environment Records
Figure 2 Map regression
Figure 3 Geoarchaeological Borehole Location
Figure 4 Geological Cross Sections
Figure 5 3D Geological Model viewed from the south.
Plates
Front Cover General View across the proposed Phase II extraction area
Plate 1 Aerial photograph showing cropmark in phase II area.

Plate 2 A possible palaeochannel traversing east-west through area of
postulated long barrow.
Plate 3 Swallowhole located at eastern end of palaeochannel.
Plate 4 Devrill’s Pit
Plate 5 Southern end of track linking Ley’s Farm to Allards Road
Back Cover Current land usage
ii
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited

EAST BURNHAM,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Summary
Summerleaze Limited commissioned Wessex Archaeology to undertake an

archaeological desk based assessment in support of a review of Planning Conditions
imposed upon Planning Consent granted in 1993 for the extraction of gravel on land
to the west of East Burnham, Buckinghamshire (application area centred on NGR
495054/183788). Planning permission was granted for the extraction of aggregate in
three phases of which Phase 1 has been completed. The original Phase 2 and Phase
3 have been changed around. This assessment has been produced as part of the
ROMP process and covers Phase 2 (Leys Farm) previously entered in the planning
process as Phase 3.
The original Planning Permission attracted no archaeological planning conditions

however through the ROMP process the original conditions are to be reviewed. As
part of this review David Radford, Archaeological Officer, Buckinghamshire County
Council has requested a desk based assessment.
The original Environmental Statement submitted in September 2007 concluded that

no archaeological sites, structures or features of significance were present within the
consented area. A crop mark is located within the area and identified by the RCHME
as a possible Neolithic long barrow or prehistoric enclosure however this assessment
considers that the crop mark might be defining a palaeochannel leading to a swallow
hole identified by the Site walkover.
The search of the SMR has established that there is a moderate to high potential for
buried remains related to the Palaeolithic period, to be located within the immediate
vicinity of the proposed Phase 2 extraction area.
Appendix 3 comprises a geoarchaeological assessment prepared at the request of

Buckinghamshire County Council. The geological assessment exists as a stand
alone detachable component of the Desk Based Assessment.
iii
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
EAST BURNHAM,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment
Acknowledgements
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mick Lowe Esq, Director, of

Summerleaze Limited who funded the assessment. Wessex Archaeology would like
to acknowledge the help and advice of Julia Wise, Sites and Monuments Officer, and
David Radford, Archaeological Officer, Buckinghamshire County Council, and also
the staff at the Buckinghamshire County Record Office for their assistance.
The geological data is in part derived from material previously supplied to the client
by the British Geological Survey.
This report was researched and complied by Peter Reeves, the geoarchaeological
report was compiled by Jack Russell, and the illustrations were prepared by Kitty
Brandon. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Peter Reeves.
iv
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited

EAST BURNHAM,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 Summerleaze Limited (the Client) commissioned Wessex Archaeology to

undertake a Desk Based Assessment as part of the review of Planning
Conditions placed on Planning permission for the extraction of gravel at East
Burnham Quarry, Farnham Lane, East Burnham, Buckinghamshire (the
Site), located at NGR 495054/183788 (site centred). The review is being
undertaken as part of the ROMP procedure.
1.1.2 The development entails the extraction of gravel from what was originally
proposed as the Phase 3 extraction area. Due to a change in logistics the
Phase 3, or Leys Farm area, has become the Phase 2 area.
1.1.3 The objective of this Assessment is to appraise the archaeological potential

of the Site by the collation of known archaeological and historical information
within a 1km search area centred on the Site, in order to identify potential
archaeological and cultural heritage impacts and constraints.
1.1.4 The assessment was collated, compiled and conforms to guidelines

contained within a brief supplied by David Radford, Buckinghamshire
County Council.
1.2 Landscape and Geology
1.2.1 The Site, centred on NGR 495054/183788 consists of a series of small fields
of undulating pasture used for horse grazing. A trackway following a hollow
way between parallel hedges links Ley’s Farm (to the north of the Site) to
Allerds Road, forming the southern boundary of the Site. The trackway has
been blocked off with wire fencing.
1.2.2 The Site is recorded, in an unpublished report undertaken for the client by
the British Geological Survey (BGS. 2005. Geological maps and cross
sections of East Burnham interpreted from borehole data), as located above
Boyne Hill Gravel Terraces overlying a thin band of the Reading Beds (sand
and clay) which in turn overlay chalk deposits belonging to the Upper
Cretaceous.
1.2.3 The site is located to the north and west of the recently expanded
settlements of Britwell (south), Farnham Royal (south east) and East
Burnham (east), but sits within a quiet rural setting.
1
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Scope
2.1.1 The aim of this assessment is to detail the known information relating to
archaeology and the historic environment and to assess the potential for the
presence of previously unknown elements that may be impacted by the
proposed mineral extraction within Phase 2.
2.1.2 The Historic Environment Resource within a 1km radius centred on the Site
has been considered in order to provide a context for the discussion and
interpretation of the known and potential resource. This is referred to as the
Study Area (Figure 1).
2.1.3 A brief summary of the sources consulted is given below.
2.2 Research
2.2.1 A number of publicly accessible sources of primary and synthesised

information were consulted.
Buckinghamshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR)

2.2.2 Buckinghamshire County Council maintains a database of all recorded
archaeological sites, findspots and archaeological events within the county
including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Scheduled Monuments.
The database was consulted for this report and a synthesised summary of
the records located within the Study Area is presented in the Gazetteer in
Appendix 1 and is illustrated on Figure 1. Wessex Archaeology has
assigned a unique number (WA) to the original SMR entries.
2.2.3 This database is not a record of all surviving elements of the Historic
Environment but is a record of the discovery of a wide range of
archaeological and historical components of the Historic Environment. The
information held within it is not complete and does not preclude the
subsequent discovery of further elements of the Historic Environment that
are at present unknown.
2.2.4 It should be noted at this point that the original search request returned 48
results within the 1km search area and 9 adjacent to the search area.
However, due to duplicity of entries this has been reduced to 37 SMR
entries and 10 Listed Buildings (Appendix 1). The original multiples at
single points are shown within the table but as part of the single WA number
that they have been allocated to. The 37 entries include 6 gravel pits and
quarries, all dating to the post-medieval period. Quarries are of some
interest with regard to the history of gravel extraction in the area but are
considered to be of very low cultural value.
2.2.5 Within the proposed Phase 2 extraction area only 1 SMR entry (WA 12) is
recorded.
Legislative and Planning Documents

2.2.6 Buckinghamshire County Council has statutory duties regarding the control
of development. With regard to archaeological sites, Buckinghamshire
County Council have taken account of central government guidelines in the
2
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG
16), issued by the Department of the Environment in November 1990.
2.2.7 The results of a review of this legislation and where relevant details of any
statutory designations such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and
Scheduled Monuments are included in Section 3 of this report.
Documentary Sources
2.2.8 A search of other relevant primary and secondary sources was carried out
digitally, through the Buckinghamshire Record Office and in Wessex
Archaeology’s own library. The sources consulted are listed in the
References section below.
Cartographic Sources
2.2.9 A search of historic manuscripts and Ordnance Survey maps was
undertaken. The study of maps and other associated historical sources
helps to clarify the archaeological potential of the Study Area in two ways.
Firstly, it suggests aspects of the medieval and later land-use prior to its
modern development. Secondly, it pinpoints areas within the Study Area
which, as a result of that development, are likely to have become
archaeologically sterile. The maps relevant to the Site are listed in the
References section (Section 6, below).
Aerial Photographs
2.2.10 Under certain conditions sub-surface archaeological features can be visible
on Aerial Photographs (AP’s). Transcriptions of AP’s of the Study Area were
obtained from the SMR, and AP’s forwarded by the client were also
reviewed as part of this report. However the site has been extensively
remodelled since the post-medieval period and any original landscape
features had been long removed prior to the onset of aerial photography.
Site Visit
2.2.11 The Site has been visited to assess the general aspect, character, condition
and setting of the Site and to identify any potential impacts not evident from
documentary sources. The Site was accessed from Public Rights of Way,
with specific attention paid to the area covered by the proposed Phase 2
extraction, for an overview of potential indirect visual impacts and to gauge
potential direct impacts.
Best Practice Guidance

2.2.12 This assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Institute of
Field Archaeologists’ Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-
Based Assessment (IFA 1994 revised September 2001).
2.2.13 The assessment has been undertaken following the guidelines issued in the
brief supplied by Buckinghamshire County Council (Radford 2007).
Assumptions
2.2.14 The SMR data consists of secondary information derived from varied
sources, only some of which have been directly examined for the purposes
of this assessment. The assumption is made that this data, as well as that
derived from other secondary sources, is reasonably accurate.
3
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
2.3 Legislative and Planning Background
National Legislation and Planning Guidance
Archaeology
2.3.1 The main legislation concerning the protection of important archaeological
sites is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as
amended). This act provides for nationally important archaeological sites to
be statutorily protected as Scheduled Monuments (SMs). Under this act
Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) must be sought for any works which
may affect a designated Scheduled Monument.
2.3.2 The principal national guidance on the importance, management and

safeguarding of the archaeological resource within the planning process is
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16)
issued by the Department of the Environment in November 1990. The
underlying principle of this guidance is that archaeological resources are
non-renewable, stating that:
…Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or

not, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in
favour of their physical preservation. (Para. 8)
Paragraph 19 states:
In their own interests…prospective developers should in all cases include as

part of the research into the development of a site…an initial assessment of
whether the site is known or likely to contain archaeological remains.
Paragraph 22 adds:
Local Planning Authorities can expect developers to provide the results of

such assessments …as part of their application for sites where there is good
reason to believe there are remains of archaeological importance.
In addition paragraph 25 advises:
2.3.3 Paragraph 25 adds:
‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in-situ of

archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the case and
that development resulting in the destruction of the remains should proceed,
it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself,
before granting planning permission, that the developer has made
appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of
the remains. Such excavation and recording should be carried out before
the development commences, working to a project brief prepared by the
planning authority and taking advice from archaeological consultants’.
2.3.4 PPG 15 provides a full statement of Government policies for the

identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and
other areas of the historic environment and compliments the guidance on
archaeology and planning given in PPG 16.
4
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
2.3.5 With specific regard to the setting of Listed Buildings paragraph 2.17,
Section 2 of PPG 15 states:
‘Local planning authorities are required under section 67 of the Act to

publish a legal notice of all applications they receive for planning permission
for any development which, in their opinion, affects the setting of a listed
building. This provision should not be interpreted too narrowly: the setting of
a building may be limited to obviously ancillary land, but may often include
land some distance from it.’
2.3.6 Section 4 of PPG 15 focuses on Conservation Areas, paragraph 4.1 states:
‘Section 69 of the Act imposes a duty on local planning authorities to

designate as conservation areas any ‘areas of special architectural or
historic interest the character or appearance of which is desirable to
preserve or enhance.’
2.3.7 Paragraph 4.4 states:
‘The definition of an area’s special interest should derive from an

assessment of the elements that contribute to (and detract from) it.
Conservation areas vary greatly, but certain aspects will almost always form
the basis for a coherent assessment: the topography; thoroughfares and
property boundaries and its historical development; the archaeological
significance and potential; the prevalent building materials; the character
and hierarchy of spaces; the quality and relationship of buildings in the area
and also of trees and other green features.’
2.3.8 Paragraph 4.18 adds:
‘Local planning authorities will often need to ask for detailed plans and
drawings of proposed new development, including elevations which show
the new development, including elevations which show the new
development in its setting….’
3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Palaeolithic (500,000BC-10,000BC)
The Site
3.1.1 There are no known archaeological remains of this period within the Site
and none were recorded from the Phase 1 extraction area.
Study Area
3.1.2 There are eight findspots dating to this period recorded within the Study
Area and a further two are located immediately to the south of the 1km
radius, most of these reference artefacts that were retrieved during
extraction of gravel from post-medieval quarries or by members of the public
subsequently walking through the redundant pits. None of these finds have
been retrieved through scientific investigation and their precise positions
within the locations in which they were found are not known.
5
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
3.1.3 WA 1 references a small but well made Acheulian type handaxe found at
Swillys Pond. No further details are known however the pond is in the base
of a former gravel pit on the opposite side of the road to Deverill’s Pit (WA
25), also a former gravel pit.
3.1.4 WA 2, WA 6 and WA 10 refer to Palaeolithic artefacts that have been found

within Burnham Beeches. WA 2 refers specifically to a broken handaxe
retrieved from a stream flowing through Burnham Beeches, however the
SMR Record Card also records further Palaeolithic artefacts from the same
area (WA 6) that have been handed in by private collectors. A further 8
Palaeolithic handaxes are recorded separately (WA 10).
3.1.5 WA 3 records a wealth of Palaeolithic material from the former gravel pit
known as Cooper’s, Bond’s or East Burnham Pit. The pit has since been
filled. The collection of axes, flakes and cores form the largest assemblage
of material to be retrieved from the Boyne Hill gravels.
3.1.6 WA 4, WA 7, WA 8 and WA 9 are slightly misleading in their presentation

within the record, although located at four different map references all
records relate to flint artefacts of Acheulian Lavalloisian and Clactonian
date, retrieved during construction of a sewer pipe in the 1950’s. Although it
is accepted that the flint implements were found their exact location must be
open to speculation. WA 4 and WA 7, although falling outside the search
area are included as they form a concentration of Palaeolithic artefacts that
were discovered as a result of the expansion of Britwell during the 1950’s.
3.1.7 WA 5 refers to the large number of Palaeolithic flint artefacts that have been
retrieved from Deverill’s Pit, also known as Pusey’s Pit and Burnham
Beeches Pit. The artefact assemblage consists of axes, cores and large
numbers of flakes. The artefacts appear to have been collected between
1926 and 1954 and, along with the artefacts retrieved from Coopers Pit (WA
3), form the largest collection of Palaeolithic material from the Boyne Hill
Gravels.
Mesolithic (10,000-4,000BC)
The Site
3.1.8 There are no known archaeological remains of this period within the Site.
Study Area
3.1.9 A single entry (WA 11) is recorded to the north west of the Site on the
margin of the search area. The record notes uncertainty that the flint blade is
of Mesolithic date.
3.1.10 No further Mesolithic artefacts have been identified in the area.
Neolithic (4000BC-2400BC)
The Site
3.1.11 A single entry (WA 12) is inferred from the SMR. The potential site is
referred to as a possible enclosure or a long barrow observed as a crop
mark in aerial photographs. The relevant photograph has been reproduced
as Plate 1 and the crop mark transcribed onto Figure 1.
6
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
3.1.12 There appears to be confusion in the records with WA 37, an undated
cropmark transcribed from an aerial photograph. The aerial photograph (ref
CPE.\UK\1986 18 JAN ’47 F\20’ \\ M) clearly shows the undated enclosure
to be located in the position of WA 12, the crop mark does not resemble a
long barrow but more of a rectilinear single ditched enclosure. The
suggestion of the feature being a potential long barrow was put forward by
the RCHM(E) in 1995.
3.1.13 The Site walkover could discern no obvious earthwork feature at this
location; however, it would appear that a palaeochannel does run through
the area (Plate 2). The palaeochannel can be observed running from left to
right through the centre of the photograph.
Study Area
3.1.14 There are no additional entries within the SMR for either sites or artefacts
belonging to this period.
Bronze Age (2400BC-700BC)
The Site
3.1.15 There are no known archaeological remains of this period within the Site.
Study Area
3.1.16 No remains belonging to this period have been noted in the SMR within the
Study Area.
Iron Age (700BC- AD43) and Romano-British ( AD43-410)
The Site
3.1.17 There are no known archaeological remains dating to either of these periods
within the Site.
Study Area
3.1.18 There is a single entry relating to the Iron Age hillfort (WA 13) within
Burnham Beeches. The hillfort is a Scheduled Monument (SM 27136). In the
Schedule the fort is described as roughly oval in plan measuring c. 140 m
north to south and 100 m east to west, enclosed by a ditch measuring at its
maximum 10 m in width. Traces of an internal bank remain and there is
some evidence for a smaller external bank. The north east corner of the site
has been truncated by post-medieval quarrying.
3.1.19 Two findspots of Romano-British material are recorded within the SMR (WA
14 and WA 15). WA 14 is actually located outside the search area toward
the centre of Farnham Royal and interestingly describes water or drain pipes
belonging to this period. WA 15 refers to fragments of Roman tile and
Romano-British pottery found during construction of house along
Kidderminster Road. Interestingly, both entries lie immediately to the south
of Farnham Lane, which may have formed a transport route during this
period.
Saxon (AD 410 – 1066) and Medieval (AD 1066 -1499)

The Site
7
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
3.1.20 There are no known archaeological remains dating to either of these periods
located within the Site.
Study Area
3.1.21 The two entries recorded within the SMR reference centres of Medieval
settlement recorded in the Domesday Book. WA 16 marks the approximate
centre of East Burnham, located within the search area. WA 17 marks the
approximate centre of Farnham Royal located immediately adjacent to the
south east arc of the search area. Both these manors are recorded as being
held by Saxons prior to the conquest, however, no physical evidence
relating to this period has been retrieved from the area.
3.1.22 It is probable that much of the area was either farmed or existed as common
during this period, as suggested by the later cartographic evidence (refer to
sections below).
Post-Medieval (AD 1500 – 1799) to Modern
The Site
3.1.23 The SMR records no sites or artefacts from within the proposed Phase II
extraction area. It should be noted however that the agricultural fields
probably had their boundaries set out in the nineteenth century.
Study Area
3.1.24 Twenty five entries are recorded within the SMR as falling within the Search
Area, a further five are located immediately adjacent to the search areas
perimeter.
3.1.25 Within these entries seven refer to quarries, five to gardens or various parts
of and ten are Listed Buildings. The quarries are themselves of very minor
importance and provide little contribution to the cultural history of the area;
the Palaeolithic contents of some of these quarries (described above) are,
however of value.
3.1.26 WA 22, 23 and 24 define an area of post medieval industrial activity centred
round the junction of Pumpkin Hill, Hawthorn Lane and Grove Road in the
north west section of the search area. WA 22 refers to the former Burnham
Beeches Brickworks, WA 23 refers to the Kiln Woods former Brickworks,
Quarry and Tile Works, and WA 24 refers to Burnham Beeches Pottery Kiln.
No structural remains are evident on the Site and a house is constructed
over the site of the pottery kiln. WA 18 references fragments of vitrified brick
that were retrieved from WA 23.
3.1.27 WA 25 references the former gravel extraction site Deverill’s Pit (contained
a substantial Palaeolithic tool assemblage (WA 5 above). WA 26 marks the
former location of Cooper’s Pit, a gravel pit which contained WA 3. WA 27
marks the site of a small redundant quarry located to the south of Swillys
Farm. WA 29 marks the site of a small gravel pit on East Burnham
Common, WA 31 marks the site of Bottom Waltons gravel pit. WA 32 marks
the site of a small quarry to the north of Hunts Wood Farm.
3.1.28 WA 19 references the garden attached to Caldicott School formerly the East
Burnham Lodge. The majority of the garden area has been destroyed by
8
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
subsequent expansion of the school buildings. Its position within Figure 1 is
as indicated on the SMR.
3.1.29 WA 20 and WA 21 both refer to elements of the former gardens that were
ancillary to East Burnham House. WA 20 is specific to the formal garden,
the tree avenue and a walled garden, WA 21 to the kitchen garden and the
orangery. Most of the nineteenth century park (Popple’s Park) has been
removed by subsequent mineral extraction and this is noted in the review of
the Historic Park and Gardens Register (1998).
3.1.30 WA 28 and WA 33 both refer to the former location of Allards Manor. Allards
or East Burnham Manor, which appeared to have a sixteenth century origin
was demolished by Lady Grenville and was replaced by a market garden c.
1837.
3.1.31 WA 30 refers to an enclosure of unknown function however the point is

actually located on a small redundant quarry. The site appears as a former
gravel pit on nineteenth and twentieth century maps.
3.1.32 WA 34 and WA 35 both refer to modern walled gardens, the former at East
Burnham Grove and the later at East Burnham End.
3.1.33 WA 36 makes reference to the interior of the Iron Age hillfort (WA 13) being
used as an army camp for a motorised division during the Second World
War.
3.1.34 Within this period twelve Listed Buildings are recorded on the SMR, none of
these buildings occur in the Phase II area (or Site) and three are located
beyond the perimeter of the search area. These buildings have been
allocated LB numbers and are illustrated on Figure 1.
3.1.35 None of these buildings are of outstanding importance as all are Grade II
Listed Buildings. The exception being LB 2 which is also a Scheduled
Monument (SM 27139).
3.1.36 LB 2 is described in the Schedule as a rectangular brick built walled

enclosure measuring c. 8.5 m by 5 m. The present structure was
constructed in the latter part of the eighteenth century and extensively
restored in the twentieth. It is possible that the current structure may overlie
an original structure, a pound being recorded here since the thirteenth
century.
Unknown
3.1.37 Confusion exists in the SMR with regard to WA 37 it is recorded as an

undated enclosure observed on an aerial photograph (Plate 1) however
transcription onto a base map (Figure 1) indicates the feature exists at the
location ascribed for the possible long barrow (WA 12). The shape and form
of the enclosure would suggest a prehistoric date.
4 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS
4.1 Potential Impacts
9
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
4.1.1 The potential impacts of the extraction of mineral from the Phase II area,
and the construction of any associated infrastructure that could result in
effects on the Historic Environment resource, are:
– Temporary land take;

– Permanent severance of sites/monuments;
– Excavation, ground disturbance and compaction; or
– Areas used for stockpiling.
4.1.2 These impacts could lead to the following effects on the Historic
Environment resource:
– Complete or partial loss of an archaeological feature or deposit;

– Loss of the physical and/or visual integrity of a feature, monument
or group of monuments;
– Damage to resources due to compaction, desiccation or water-
logging; or
– Damage or loss due to excavation.
4.2 Existing Impacts
4.2.1 Under its present land use, horse grazing, there are no impacts upon the
cultural resource.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section of the report details the archaeological constraints in terms of
the proposed development and is based on information derived from the
sources listed in the Methodology, taking into account the likely effects of
previous land use on the preservation of potential remains.
5.2 Legislative and Planning Constraints
5.2.1 For ease of reference details of any statutory and/or local planning
designations are detailed separately below.
Scheduled Monuments
5.2.2 There are no Scheduled Monuments within the Site. Although two
Scheduled Monuments are recorded within the Search Area these are so
remote from the Site that they are neither indirectly or directly impacted
upon by the proposed mineral extraction.
Listed Buildings
5.2.3 Ley’s Farmhouse and Ley’s Barn, both Listed Buildings (LB 5 and LB 6
respectively), are located to the north of the proposed extraction area.
Neither of these buildings will be directly impacted upon. Throughout the
duration of mineral workings an indirect visual impact will result in a change
in view from the south, however as access to the public is already restricted
this is regarded as minor.
5.2.4 There are no visual impacts on any of the other Listed Buildings contained
within Appendix 2.
10
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
5.2.5 There are no direct impacts on any of the Listed Buildings identified within
the search area.
Conservation Areas, Historic Parks and Gardens and Historic

Battlefields
5.2.6 No Conservation Areas, Historic Parks and Gardens or Historic Battlefields
are recorded within the Site.
5.2.7 The mineral extraction is within a confined area and will have no visual
impact on any of the above.
5.3 Map Regression
5.3.1 The Site actually falls on the junction of several maps and therefore
complete map coverage is very poor. However, observations of the Tithe
Map and the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries Ordnance Survey map
coverage show the area to have retained its rural character with the plot of
land remaining unchanged.
5.3.2 The Tithe Map for Britwell, surveyed in 1841, is scarce in detail (Figure 2
A). The Site area contains seven fields of variable size. The
Buckinghamshire Landscape Characterisation data categorizes all the fields
as belonging to pre-eighteenth century co-axial enclosure. Two small
dwellings and associated gardens are located adjacent to Crow Piece Lane
(western boundary).
5.3.3 The 1876 1:2500 Map shows the same arrangement of fields although the
two properties noted in the Tithe Map have gone. The field boundaries are
clearly defined as vegetated but whether as continuous hedgelines or
irregular spaced tree growth cannot be discerned (Figure 2 B).
5.3.4 The 1932 6” Map (originally surveyed in 1874) and the 1933 1:2,500 Map
(Figure 2 C and D) shows a reduction to five fields.
5.3.5 Throughout the historical mapping the layout of the roads and fields remains
consistent. Within the proposed Phase II extraction area there is an
apparent reduction in development (the removal of two dwellings) rather
than expansion. The footpath shown traversing the north west corner of the
Site has been in existence since prior to the surveying of the Tithe Map in
1841. The trackway linking Ley’s Farm to Allerds Road would also appear to
have existed prior to 1841.
5.3.6 Of particular interest is the field boundary, observed on the Tithe Map, the
OS Map dated 1876 and observed today meandering from west to east
across the Site. This boundary would appear to be following an underlying
feature in the landscape, a possible palaeochannel, observable as a c.20 m
wide linear gully (Plate 2) which appears to end in a swallow hole (Plate 3)
on the Site’s eastern boundary.
5.4 Site Walkover
5.4.1 The site visit was undertaken in clear dry sunny weather.
11
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
5.4.2 The Site was accessed via public rights of way and through access granted
by Summerleaze Limited. The Site consists of gentle undulating fields that
are circumvented by small roads or lanes that are paralleled by well
established hedgerows. The routes of the roads were walked in an
anticlockwise direction starting at the south east corner of the Site.
5.4.3 The Listed Buildings (LB 5 and LB 6) are visible from the Site although they
have undergone much recent renovation. During the summer months the
views toward these buildings would be significantly reduced by tree growth
and leaf cover.
5.4.4 Many of the gravel pits that previously existed and that have been noted on
the SMR have been infilled, however Deverill’s Pit has been left largely
intact although a private dwelling is built within its footprint (Plate 4).
5.4.5 Within the area of the supposed Long Barrow (WA 12) the road, Crow Piece
Lane, has a pronounced dip, this dip can be observed as a channel
continuing to the west of the road and then turning south west toward the
former Lock’s Bottom Amenity Tip. The channel continues to the east of the
road (Plate 2) concluding at a possible swallow hole on the eastern
boundary of the Phase II area (Plate 3).
5.4.6 The trackway passing north to south and linking Ley’s Farm with Allerds
Road has been blocked off (Plate 5). The track appears to be of greater
antiquity than that suggested by the post-medieval buildings presently
observable at Ley’s Farm. The bed of the route is set between significant
tree topped banks with oak trees within close association of the east bank,
the track should be regarded as a hollow way.
5.5 Hedgerows
5.5.1 The hedgerow boundaries within the Site might warrant consideration under
the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 as they may be considered important due
to their appearance on maps prior to 1845.
5.5.2 The parallel hedges (less than 15 m apart) lining the track leading to Ley’s
Farm may be considered important under the landscape criteria.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary of Archaeological Constraints
6.1.1 A single archaeological feature (WA 12) of dubious nature is recorded within
the Site area. The Site is interpreted by the RCHME as a possible long
barrow or enclosure, an aerial photograph taken in 1947 indicates an
enclosure, the site walkover suggests that with out doubt the feature is an
underlying palaeochannel, and no evidence for an earthwork either a long
barrow or enclosure was observed anywhere within the proposed Phase 2
extraction area.
6.1.2 Although no artefacts have been recovered from the Site the surrounding
area, from former gravel pits has yielded a high number of Palaeolithic
artefacts from the Boyne Hill gravel deposits (WA 1 -10). There is therefore
a very high probability that further examples will be found within the Phase
12
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
2 area although this probability should be balanced by the lack of any
material from Phase I.
6.1.3 The archaeological assessment indicates a high potential for deposits

relating to WA 12, whatever this feature may prove to be, to be encountered
during extraction in the Phase 2 area.
6.1.4 The archaeological statement indicates a low to zero potential for deposits
containing archaeological remains dating to any period other than the
Palaeolithic to be present within the Phase 2 area.
6.2 Recommended Further Works and Mitigation
6.2.1 A limited archaeological trial trench evaluation is recommended across the

site of WA 12 to establish whether an archaeological monument exists in
this location. Planning permission has previously been granted for the
extraction of minerals within the Phase 2 area an evaluation is
recommended prior to the commencement of working.
6.2.2 The results of the evaluation would establish whether the feature observed
on the aerial photograph is a long barrow, an enclosure or, as observed in
the field, a palaeochannel.
6.2.3 Palaeolithic deposits, if present, due to their depth within the gravel
sequence are very unlikely to be detected through archaeological trial
trenching or test pitting. It is therefore recommended that a programme of
monitoring works is established as a condition attached to planning
permission. The monitoring should take the form of the archaeological
geological recording that is currently set up for the nearby Berry Hill Farm
Quarry at Taplow.
13
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pevsner, N., 1994, The Buildings of England: Buckinghamshire.
Radford, D., 2007. Brief for an Archaeological Desk-based Assessment and Geo-
archaeological Assessment. Project: East Burnham Quarry, Phase
2 and 3. Buckinghamshire County Archaeological Service.
Unpublished Report. Brief Issued 6/11/07
RCHME 1995, The Thames Valley Project – A report For The National Mapping
Programme (V E P Fenner).
RCHME 1922, The Monuments of Buckinghamshire (South) Vol I
Roe, D.A., 1968 A Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites.
CBAResearch Report No. 8
Sheaham J 1862, History and Topography of Buckinghamshire
Smith N 1998, Historic Parks and Gardens Register Review (Unpublished)
VHCE A History of Buckinghamshire Vol III
Wymer, J.J., 1999; The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. 2 Volumes. Wessex
Archaeology (with English Heritage), Salisbury, UK.
14
WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Table of Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Records within the Study Area
WA NGR Parish NMR/SMR Period(s) Description
No. No
1 494780 184230 Burnham 0157100000 Palaeolithic Swilley Pond, Findspot
2 495000 184400 Burnham 0157200000 Palaeolithic Burnham Beeches, Artefact Scatter
3 494600 184220 Burnham 0155001000 Palaeolithic Coopers Pit, Findspot
0155001001
0155001002
4 495430 182820 Burnham 0161900000 Palaeolithic Dodsfield Road, Findspot
5 494700 184000 Burnham 0202501000 Palaeolithic Deverills Pit, Findspot
0202501001
0202501002
6 495000 184400 Burnham 0157201000 Palaeolithic Burnham Beeches, Findspot
7 495550 182890 Burnham 0161800000 Palaeolithic Long Readings Lane, Findspot
8 495150 182970 Burnham 0161700000 Palaeolithic Kidderminster Road, Findspot
9 495080 182860 Burnham 0161600000 Palaeolithic Wentworth Avenue, Findspot
10 495000 184400 Burnham 0157202000 Palaeolithic Burnham Beeches, Findspot
0157202001
0157202002
11 494340 184420 Burnham 0473900000 Mesolithic Kiln Wood, Findspot
12 494820 183700 Burnham 0625600000 Neolithic Locks Bottom, Longbarrow? Enclosure?
13 495280 182990 Burnham 0155800000 Iron Age Seven Ways Plain, Iron Age Hillfort (SM 27136)
14 496050 182980 Burnham 0162900000 Romano-British Farnham Royal Village, Findspot
15 495280 182990 Burnham 0161000000 Romano-British Kidderminster Road, Findspot
0161001000
16 495500 183900 Burnham 0855600000 Medieval East Burnham Village
17 495900 182900 Farnham Royal 0858800000 Medieval Farnham Royal Village
18 494610 184460 Burnham 0474000001 Post-Medieval Burnham Beeches, Findspot
19 494500 183790 Burnham 0653300000 Post-Medieval Caldicott School (formerly East Burnham Lodge), Garden
20 495200 183350 Burnham 0653701000 Post-Medieval East Burnham Park, Formal Garden, Park, Tree Avenue and walled Garden
21 495150 184150 Burnham 0653700000 Post-Medieval East Burnham House, Kitchen Garden, Orangery, Park
22 494450 184490 Burnham 0474001000 Post-medieval Burnham Beeches, Brickworks
23 494320 184500 Burnham 0474100000 Post-Medieval Kiln Wood, Brickworks, Quarry and Tile works
24 494450 184490 Burnham 0474000000 Post-Medieval Burnham Beeches, Pottery Kiln
25 494700 184000 Burnham 0202500000 Post-Medieval Deverils Pit, Gravel Pit
26 494600 184220 Burnham 0155000000 Post-Medieval Coopers Pit, Gravel Pit
27 494714 184146 Burnham 0894000000 Post-Medieval Swilly Farm (south of), Quarry
28 495500 183800 Burnham 0150600000 Post-Medieval East Burnham/Allards Manor
29 495080 184330 Burnham 0894100000 Post-Medieval East Burnham Common, Gravel Pit
30 494461 183610 Burnham 0893900000 Post-Medieval North Bottom Waltons, Enclosure
31 494429 183188 Burnham 0893800000 Post-medieval Bottom Waltons, Gravel Pit
15

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Summerleaze Limited
32 494187 184374 Burnham 0893700000 Post-Medieval North of Hunts Wood Farm, Quarry
33 495500 183800 Burnham 0150601000 Post-Medieval Allards, Manor house
34 495470 183870 Burnham 0653500000 Modern East Burnham Grove, Tree Avenue, woodland garden
35 495500 184370 Burnham 0653600000 Modern East Burnham End, Walled Garden, woodland garden
36 494710 184660 Burnham 0155801000 Modern Seven Ways Plain, Army Camp, motor transport camp
37 494640 183200 Burnham 0455000000 Unknown Waltons Lane/Bottom Walton, Enclosure
Listed Buildings
LB1 494717 184248 Burnham 1215000000 Post-Medieval Swilley Farmhouse
LB2 495518 183924 Burnham 0573100000 Post-Medieval East Cattle Pound (SM 27139)
LB3 495500 183980 Burnham 1214900000 Post-Medieval The Crown (Public House)
LB4 494729 184272 Burnham 1215001000 Post-Medieval Swilley Farmhouse, the outbuildings
LB5 495026 183930 Burnham 1217600000 Post-Medieval Ley’s Farmhouse
LB6 495077 183963 Burnham 1217601000 Post-medieval Barn at Ley’s Farmhouse
LB7 495315 184107 Burnham 1217700000 Post-Medieval Malt Cottage
LB8 496015 182942 Farnham Royal 1223300000 Post-Medieval The Crown (Public House)
LB9 495984 182912 Farnham Royal 1223400000 Post-Medieval The Dukes Head (Public House)
LB10 495980 182840 Farnham Royal 1340100000 Modern War memorial at the junction of Church Road and Farnham Road
16

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
Appendix 2 – Cartographic sources
BRO refers to maps held by Buckinghamshire Records Office (Aylesbury)
Plan of the Estate of Henry Sayer Esq, 1796 (BRO M&R/17)
Britwell Tithe Map, 1841 with Apportionments (BRO).
Ordnance Survey, 1:2500, Bucks Sheet 53.9, 1876.
Ordnance Survey, 1:2500, Bucks Sheet 53.9, 1899
Ordnance Survey, 6 inch map, Bucks 53 SW, 1938 (surveyed 1874).
Ordnance Survey, 6 inch map, Bucks 53 NW, 1938 (surveyed 1874)
Ordnance Survey, 6 inch map, Bucks SU 98 SE, 1961
Ordnance Survey, 6 inch map, Bucks SU 98 SW, 1961
Ordnance Survey, 1:2500, Bucks Sheet SU 9483/9583, 1972
Ordnance Survey, 1:10,000, Bucks SU 98 SE, 1975
Ordnance Survey, 1:10,000, Bucks SU 98 SW, 1976
Ordnance Survey, 1:10,000, Bucks SU 98 SE, 1987
Ordnance Survey, 1:10,000, Bucks SU 98 SW, 1988
Ordnance Survey, 1:2,500, Bucks SU 9583, 1987
17 Desk Based Assessment

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
Appendix 3: East Burnham Geoarchaeological Assessment.

Jack Russell, Wessex Archaeology.
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
Wessex Archaeology has been commissioned by Summerleaze Ltd. to undertake a

geoarchaeological assessment of the proposed aggregate extraction quarry at east
Burnham, Buckinghamshire (Figure 1). The instructions of Buckinghamshire County
Archaeology Service (Radford 2007) set the parameters of this geoarchaeological
assessment to include the following :
x “Undertake a geo-archaeological specialist assessment to create an

graphically illustrated 3d topographical predictive model of this area of the
gravel terrace by considering evidence such as topography, geology, bore-
hole, augering data and any relevant data from the exiting quarried area.
Identify any areas of sedimentary deposition (fine gravel deposits indicating
bedding layers or channels) that may have the potential to preserve in-situ
deposit
x Provide a preliminary interpretation of site formation processes on

this site and provide a judgement on the potential quality and relative
importance of the site in terms of the Boyn Hill Gravels
x Depending on the outcome of this assessment, propose a strategy for

field evaluation or mitigation” (Radford 2007)
Geoarchaeological Background
Throughout the Pleistocene epoch the study area has been affected by interglacial
and glacial periods which have shaped the landscape. Generally, the geology of the
area comprises pre-Tertiary rocks (Upper Cretaceous Chalk) underlying a thickness
of Tertiary sands and clays (Reading Beds) which in turn underlies Pleistocene
sands and gravels (Thames terrace gravels). Some Pleistocene Head or drift
deposits are known in the area (Sumbler 1996).
Wessex 1:50,000 scale British Geological Survey map (Cook 1990) indicates that
Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Quarry are situated on the Boyn Hill Terrace. This terrace is
thought to date to the Hoxnian period, Oxygen Isotope Stage (OIS) 10. Its
downstream equivalent, the Orsett Heath Gravel also contains interglacial sediments
dating to OIS 9 known more widely for its archaeological content of human bone and
tools at Swanscombe (Sumbler 1996).

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
For this study, other than the literary sources listed in the final section of this report,
the following data was available for review:
x An interpreted 3D model or “fence diagram” of the interpreted geological

sequence (BGS 2005)
x Interpreted sections across Phases 1, 2 and 3 detailing the interpreted
geological composition of borehole data in the Phase 1, 2 and 3 areas (BGS
2005)
x Detailed geological mapping based upon borehole data was available (BGS
2005).
x Four borehole logs (BB49, BB50, BB51 and BB52) from an area east of
Phases 1 and 2 and an accompanying hydrogeological investigation
report(Dixon 2004)
x 1:50,000 geological map British Geological Survey (Cook 1990)
METHOD
Geoarchaeological Assessment
A 3D model or fence diagram, which includes the proposed aggregate extraction

area has been prepared by the British Geological survey based on the interpretation
of borehole logs across the area (BGS 2005). These boreholes were drilled to
monitor water table levels and not for interpreting Pleistocene depostional processes
or for archaeological purposes. This model has been created using GSI3D Version
1.5 and a movie version was available for this study. The well known gravel terraces
named Winter Hill and Boyn Hill are clearly visible. Within the proposed aggregate
extraction area Chalk is overlain by Reading beds, the Boyn Hill gravel, Head
deposits and more recent disturbance by quarrying is seen. The data upon which this
interpretation was based was not available for study. This 3D fence diagram has
been created using six east to west and seven north to south delineated sections.
Figure 4; Sections a b, c, d and e are 2D sections (suitable for a paper report
format) of the interpreted sediments in the 3D fence diagram (Figure 5). The
interpreted stratigraphic model is summarised in the next section of this report.
Attempts to predictively model potential in situ Palaeolithic archaeology at anything

but a very broad scale by using extrapolated and interpreted water table monitoring
borehole data is not attempted here. As demonstrated by the prolific palaeolithic finds
from the area (see Appendix 1, Roe 1968 and Wymer 1999) it would appear that the
Boyn Hill gravels contain abundant archaeological material. As with most fluvial
terraces, the archaeology they contain is not generally in situ but derived. However,
as mentioned above the downstream equivalent of the Boyn Hill Terrace, the Orsett
Heath Gravel does contain in situ palaeolithic material. No sedimentary information –
other than the interpretation of the British Geological Survey was made available
from the proposed extraction area. Logs from four boreholes from an area north and
east of the proposed extraction area were reviewed (Dixon 2004). Comparing these
logs to the interpreted data from their respective areas supports the interpretation
given.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
Geotechnical Data
Within the proposed aggregate extraction area four major sedimentary units have
been identified and interpreted by the British Geological Survey (Figure 3 and Figure
4; Sections a b, c, d and e).
Chalk c.47 to 32m above OD

This deposit is recorded across the survey area generally dipping in a north to south
direction (Figure 4; Sections a, b, c, d and e). The chalk outcrops close to the
southeast corner of the Phase 3 area (Figure 3). The thickness of this deposit has
not been interpreted by the data provided which gives the chalk unit an arbitrary
basal level of 12.5m above OD.
Reading Beds c.52 to 32m above OD

This deposit is recorded across the proposed areas (Figure 3). It ranges from
between 3 and 16 metres in thickness. Figure 4; Sections a, b, d and e show an
interpreted division within these Reading beds. This unit outcrops within the Phase 1
and 3 areas (Figure 3).
Boyn Hill gravels c.56 to 42m above OD

This deposit is recorded across the proposed aggregate extraction areas (Figure 3
and Figure 4; Sections a, b, c, d and e). It has a maximum thickness of
approximately 8 metres (Figure 4; Section a). The Boyn Hill gravels appear to be
thickest above depressions noted in the underlying Chalk and Reading beds. These
depressions may be the result of natural folding and/or erosion of the underlying
bedrock.
Head c.54 to 34m above OD

This deposit is recorded in the Phase 2 and 3 areas only where it outcrops. The
deposit is up to 17metres in thickness (Figure 4; Section d). The deposit sits within
depressions in the underlying bedrock which appear to have been enhanced,
possibly by Pleistocene ?glaciofluvial activity. In the Phase 3 area, the deposit sits
within a clearly defined NE to SW delineated valley. The geomorphology of these
interpreted head filled depressions are concurrent with so called “dry valleys” filled
with solifluction deposits during the last glaciation (Sumbler 1996).
Landfill
These areas are presumably previous aggregate extraction pits and are seen in
Figure 4; Sections b, c and e.

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
STRATEGY FOR FIELD EVALUATION/MITIGATION
Geoarchaeological Interpretation
The interpreted sequence fits with the known stratigraphic sequence of the area
(Sumbler 1996). The greater detail provided by the borehole data has indicated the
presence of Head deposits not mapped on the British Geological Survey 1:50,000
map (Cook 1990) although this is at a considerably larger scale. In the Phase 3 area
the Gravel and Head deposits sit within shallow depressions in the Chalk and
Reading beds. At a broader scale these Pleistocene deposits (Boyn Hill and Head)
are part of sedimentation within the Thames Valley.
As mentioned above, detailed interpretation of the stratigraphy and therefore

prediction of in situ Palaeolithic archaeology cannot be done with any confidence
based upon the data reviewed. At a broader scale it is however possible to identify
areas of archaeological potential and strategies for evaluation and mitigation.
Evaluation/Mitigation
The interpreted results given by the British Geological Survey are of a level sufficient
to generate a stratigraphic framework for the site. From this geoarchaeological
mitigation and evaluation strategies can be proposed. The Boyn Hill terrace is known
to contain numerous Palaeolithic artefacts (Appendix 1, Roe 1968 and Wymer 1999)
and is also the aggregate resource being proposed to be extracted. This deposit
should therefore be systematically investigated prior to its extraction and monitored
during its extraction. This report clearly identifies the levels at which the Boyn Hill
terrace exists across the Phase 1, 2 and 3 areas (illustrated as a 3D model in Figure
5). Clearly attention should be paid to extraction areas close to the known
archaeologically interesting areas of Coopers and Deverill’s pits.
Any sections of Pleistocene sediments available within the Phase 1 area should be
geoarchaeologically recorded and the results of this, integrated with any original
borehole data from the site, should enhance any proposed evaluation and mitigation
within the Phase 2 and 3 areas.
The Head deposits recorded by the British Geological Survey are somewhat
enigmatic and in investigating the geoarchaeological content of the Boyn Hill gravels
some consideration should be give to these Head deposits. Field description,
sampling and dating of these deposits would aid in the understanding of their
potential archaeological content.
Systematic investigation of these deposits should occur subsequent to or potentially

during any surface archaeological investigations and prior to aggregate extraction in
these areas. Some provision for monitoring the extraction works should be provided
given the high potential for Palaeolithic archaeology in this area. The systematic
investigation would follow a brief provided by Buckinghamshire County Council and
follow a Written Scheme of Investigation approved by the Regional Scientific Advisor,
English Heritage. An identical process exists for the recording of the geological
sequence at Berry Hill Farm Quarry.

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
B ki h hi
REFERENCES
British Geological Survey. 2005. Geological maps and cross sections of East
Burnham interpreted from borehole data. Unpublished data.
Cameron, T.D.J., Crosby, A., Balson, P.S., Jeffery, D.H., Lott, G.K., Bulat, J. and
Harrison, D.J., 1992, ‘The geology of the southern North Sea’,
British Geological Survey United Kingdom Offshore Regional
Report, London: HMSO.
Cook, P.J., 1990. Sheet 255. Beaconsfield. Drift. 1:50,000. British Geological Survey
(Reprint).
Dixon, A., 2004. Hydrogeological investigation of the area between Burnham

Beeches and East Burnham Quarry November 2003 – March 2004.
Unpublished report.
Radford, D., 2007. Brief for an Archaeological Desk-based Assessment and Geo-
archaeological Assessment. Project: East Burnham Quarry, Phase
2 and 3. Buckinghamshire County Archaeological Service.
Unpublished Report. Brief Issued 6/11/07
Roe, D.A., 1968 A Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites.
CBAResearch Report No. 8
Sumbler, M.G., 1996. British regional geology: London and the Thames Valley (4th
edition). London HMSO for the British Geological Survey
Wymer, J.J., 1999; The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. 2 Volumes.

WA doc. ref. 67890.01
Section A Section B
maOD
N S 60 N S 60
H11 MH6 H16
maOD H5 Hh H21 BH5
50 50
50 50
40 40
40 40
30 30
30 30
20 20
20 20
10 10
10 10
0 metres 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 metres 100 200 300 400 500 600
Section C Section D
maOD N S maOD
60 60 60 W E 60
L7 L8 BH1 BH4 MH5 Hh H19 H21 L6 L8 SW9
50 50 50 MH1 50
40 40 40 40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 metres 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 metres 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Section E H11 Prospective extraction area

Borehole location
maOD A Section line
60 W E 60
BH13 B1
B
50 50
MH6
C
40 40 H16 L7
H5
H19 L6 L8
30 30 MH5 SW9
D MH1
Hh H21 BH1
20 20
BH5
B1
10 10
BH13 E
0 metres 100 200 300 400
BH4
Landfill Date: 10/12/07 Revision Number: 0

Head
Wessex Data supplied by client.
Illustrator: KJB
Boyn Hill Gravel Scale: Vertical 1:1000, horizontal 1:5000 (inset 1:12,500)
Archaeology Reading beds This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Chalk Path: Y:\Projects\67890\Drawing Office\Report Figures\...\07-12-10
Sections A-E Figure 4

This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.
Date: 17/12/07 Revision Number: 0
Wessex Scale: N/A Illustrator: KJB

Archaeology Path: London Y:\Projects\67890\Drawing Office\Report Figures\..\07-12-10
3D model as supplied by BGS, looking north Figure 5

Page extracted
due to copyright
Palaeochannel
Palaeochannel
Plate 2: Palaeochannel
Plate 3: Swallow hole

Archaeology Path: LondonY:\Projects\67890\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Type\07-12-10
Plates 2-3
Plate 4: Devrills Pit
Plate 5: Trackway

Archaeology Path: LondonY:\Projects\67890\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Type\07-12-10
Plates 4-5
WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED.
Registered Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Farnham Lane, East Burnham

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Farnham Lane, East Burnham

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wessex Archaeology

East Burnham Quarry, Farnham Lane,

Ref: 67890.01 December 2007

Desk Based Assessment

Report reference: 67890.01

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved

EAST BURNHAM QUARRY, FARNHAM LANE,

Desk Based Assessment

Appendix 1 – Buckinghamshire Sites and Monuments Record

Figure 1 Site Location and Study Area showing Buckinghamshire County

Plate 1 Aerial photograph showing cropmark in phase II area.

Back Cover Current land usage

EAST BURNHAM QUARRY, FARNHAM LANE,

Desk Based Assessment

Summerleaze Limited commissioned Wessex Archaeology to undertake an

The original Planning Permission attracted no archaeological planning conditions

The original Environmental Statement submitted in September 2007 concluded that

Appendix 3 comprises a geoarchaeological assessment prepared at the request of

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mick Lowe Esq, Director, of

EAST BURNHAM QUARRY, FARNHAM LANE,

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

1.1 Project Background

1.1.1 Summerleaze Limited (the Client) commissioned Wessex Archaeology to

1.1.3 The objective of this Assessment is to appraise the archaeological potential

1.1.4 The assessment was collated, compiled and conforms to guidelines

1.2 Landscape and Geology

2.1.3 A brief summary of the sources consulted is given below.

2.2.1 A number of publicly accessible sources of primary and synthesised

Buckinghamshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR)

Legislative and Planning Documents

Best Practice Guidance

National Legislation and Planning Guidance

2.3.2 The principal national guidance on the importance, management and

…Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or

In their own interests…prospective developers should in all cases include as

Local Planning Authorities can expect developers to provide the results of

2.3.3 Paragraph 25 adds:

‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in-situ of

2.3.4 PPG 15 provides a full statement of Government policies for the

‘Local planning authorities are required under section 67 of the Act to

2.3.6 Section 4 of PPG 15 focuses on Conservation Areas, paragraph 4.1 states:

‘Section 69 of the Act imposes a duty on local planning authorities to

2.3.7 Paragraph 4.4 states:

‘The definition of an area’s special interest should derive from an

2.3.8 Paragraph 4.18 adds:

3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1.4 WA 2, WA 6 and WA 10 refer to Palaeolithic artefacts that have been found

3.1.6 WA 4, WA 7, WA 8 and WA 9 are slightly misleading in their presentation

3.1.10 No further Mesolithic artefacts have been identified in the area.

Bronze Age (2400BC-700BC)

Iron Age (700BC- AD43) and Romano-British ( AD43-410)

Saxon (AD 410 – 1066) and Medieval (AD 1066 -1499)

Post-Medieval (AD 1500 – 1799) to Modern

3.1.31 WA 30 refers to an enclosure of unknown function however the point is

3.1.36 LB 2 is described in the Schedule as a rectangular brick built walled

3.1.37 Confusion exists in the SMR with regard to WA 37 it is recorded as an

4 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS

4.1 Potential Impacts

– Temporary land take;

– Complete or partial loss of an archaeological feature or deposit;

4.2 Existing Impacts

5.2 Legislative and Planning Constraints

Conservation Areas, Historic Parks and Gardens and Historic